About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
's daughter, understood conservatism or ronald reagan, the alcoholic son that grew up in middle america who actually believed, like i believe, like a lot of conservatives believe that if you want to help everybody, if you want to help the 100%, what you want to do is you want to fight hard for their individual free am do doms and unshackle them from regulations from high taxes, from a centralized state, and that's the best way to move forward. we can have a debate over whether that's right or wrong. the problem is, we didn't have that debate this time because mitt romney's view was such an insulated view of a guy who grew up rich and grew up in this insular world where his father ran car companies and was governor of michigan. >> this is a pivot point for the republican party. i think bobby jindal probably said it best. you have to turn -- you have to marry conservatism and pop y lyh populism. we helped the little guy because that's the america dream. it's not the opposite as far as entitlements and victims. that's a pivot point. and the republicans that get it are going to be part of a new
countries have transformed, reform, lower the rates. we haven't touched it since ronald reagan in 1986. bill clinton did raise it at one point but we haven't done anything to touch the rate and reform -- tecum from 16.5% to 15% which most of you are aware of because you do business there, and this capital investment is going to follow countries that have a more competitive environment in taxes is one of them's a we have to reform the tax code and when you do that you will get more revenue. it's guaranteed. again, as i was talking at earlier there are opportunities here for us as a country and if you look at the congressional budget analysts this and go to the tax committee analysis what tax reform could mean in the economic growth and all of them will lead to more growth with this corporate tax reform. estimate of the president says what he did last friday, this was fought over in the campaign and we fought over rising tax rates. jay carney said they would veto any bill that extends the current tax rate so if he insists that tax rates go out for those making over to under $50,000 will would
by finding common ground with the other side. ronald reagan did it with a democratic house after a resounding second term victory. as did bill clinton with the republican controlled house and republican controlled senate after a more resounding second term victory then president obama. both examples, both of them, illustrate the rare opportunity that divided government presents. president obama can follow suit or he can take the extremist view that both reagan and clinton rejected by founding his nose at the other side and insisting that if republicans are not willing to do things his way he will not do anything at all. if the president is serious, he will follow the lead of president reagan and clinton. if he is really serious, he will put the campaign rhetoric aside, propose a realistic resolution that can pass a republican controlled house and a divided senate, and work to get it done. if the president acts in this spirit, i have no doubt he will have the support of his own party and a willing partner in hours. the american people will criticize of relief knowing not only that we have avoi
that divided government sometimes has done very important things for the country. think of ronald reagan and tip o'neill reforming social security. ronald reagan and tip o'neill doing the last comprehensive tax reform. bill clinton and republican congress doing welfare reform and balancing the budget. we look forward to making this divided government productive for the american people. and we have, of course, as everyone well knows, a lot of challenges here at the end of the year. i'll be meeting with the president and the other leadership on friday to talk about the way forward. and we look forward to being a part of the solution to these significant problems. it's my plesh shoe now to turn to our newly elected whip, senator john cornyn of texas. >> thanks, mitch. it's an honor to be elected by my colleagues to serve as the whip. the assistant leader on the republican side. as leader mcconnell said, we have a lot of very difficult work to do, but we are committed to working with our colleagues across the aisle to solving the nation's urgent problems. we know what those are in the lame d
is the payback from party leaders? guest: there is change and then there is change. tip o'neill and ronald reagan got together and saved the program. sometimes you need to adjust to change the thing you care most about. tip o'neill did not sell off the democratic party by embracing that. if we do it in a responsible way that doesn't gut the program, i think the base of the party will understand. the alternative is doing nothing with bad damage to the economy, or the right wing of the republicans coming in and taking over and their answer to the solution would be much more draconian. host: jack in kentucky. caller: i have one question. can you guarantee -- guest: i thought you're going to ask why indiana university and kentucky and not playing basketball this year. for the first time they are now playing and we are rivals. i cannot talk about classified information on tv. things like stinger missiles are very problematic and we do everything we can to keep track of them. muammar gaddafi stockpiles of weapons, surface- to-air missiles and we're doing everything to track those down and secure them.
% interest rates gas lines, stagflation in 1888 different president. ronald reagan inherited a struggling economy. and reagan implemented policies 180 degrees opposite those of obama. incentive jacking up taxes, he slashed taxes. instead of exploding spending on the debt, he restrain the growth of spending and instead of unleashing the the regulators, by the way, what i think the regulators i can't help think of mr. burns saying release the hounds. [laughter] instead of releasing the hounds of regulators and small businesses a notch when there is, reagan limited regulation and the result was one of the most extraordinary burst of economic proactivity our nation has ever seen. the fourth-year regulation precisely corresponds to write here, the fourth year of obama's president be. anyone know what gdp growth was in 1984? 7.2%. our ideas work, their ideas don't. if you want growth, if you want jobs, if you want 23 million people struggling to find to get jobs, the answer is that the unique growth. they simplify the tax burden, reduce regulations and punching small businesses a notch for view
, stagflation. in 1980, a very, very different president got elected. ronald reagan like barack obama inherited a struggling economy. and reagan implemented policies 180 degrees opposite those of obama. instead of jacking up taxes, he slashed taxes. instead of exploding spending and the debt, he restrained the growth of spending and instead of unleashing the hounds of regulators, by the way, when i think of regulators, i can't help thinking of mr. burns saying "release the hounds!" [laughter] >> instead of releasing the hounds of regulators on small businesses and entrepreneurs, reagan limited regulation and the result was one of the most extraordinary bursts of economic productivity our nation has ever seen. the fourth year of reagan's presidency was 1984, the same as the fourth year of obama's presidency. anyone know what g.d.p. growth was in 1984, 7.2%. our ideas work. their ideas don't. if you want growth, if you want jobs. if you want the 23 million people struggling to find work to get jobs, the answer is simple. you need growth and to get growth, you got to reduce and simplify the tax bu
, it tried to put facts behind ronald reagan saying we fought a war on poverty and poverty won. he basically argued the welfare state had hurt poor people particularly african-americans by discouraging marriage, encouraging laziness, encouraging people to have children out-of-wedlock. he put all the blame on poverty programs. as i was writing this book charles murray writes another book called coming apart:the state of white america and charles murray is now basically saying the same thing about white lower class, really working class men, white men, that he was saying about african-americans in the 80s, that they are working less and getting married less frequently not because of any change in the economy or in culture but because they can be supported by government. he also blamed feminism and that is very interesting. he really has an analysis that says working-class white people struggling because they are lazy and don't get married and hook up. so i started to think white people are starting to say the same thing about you, so mitt romney's 47% remark where he was talking about a majori
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)